1/ (o I I &wy&AAC4sr>*A-t 



Oct Qjlo+Jrjly\ 



619 
3 
3y 1 



AMERICANS, AWAKEN ! 



FRANCIS SAVONA 



<<e Gruth Lives in the Light of "Publicity." 



COPYRIGHT. 1916. BY FRANCIS SAVONA 



NEW «D)I 

THC (VENIN6 POST jO» PRINTINO OFFICt, INC. 

1916 



i 



FOREWORD 

This little pamphlet is an attempt to answer (although 
briefly) another pamphlet, issued by Robert Flaherty, Esq., 
entitled "Suppressed History." I have endeavored, in 
my refutation of Mr. Flaherty's assertions and charges, 
not to hurt his feelings; however, if I have, I am ex- 
tremely regretful that my having to tell the truth has 
resulted in his inconvenience. 

For the success in being able to present this pamphlet 
to the reader, the author is indebted to the kindness of 
his two brothers, Loretto W. and Anthony F. Savona, 
as well as the Messrs. Joseph Silberstein, Armand Boffa 
and Benjamin Fuchs, who assisted in the search for 
authorities. I desire herewith publicly to tender them 
my thanks. 

Francis Savona. 
New York, March 21, 1916. 



I 



tl 



MAR 27 I9!6 



©GI.A429147 



A Rejoinder to a Pamphlet entitled "Suppressed 

History," by Mr. Robert Flaherty, Esq., 

by an ItalianAmerican. 

I. 

After reading your black-covered pamphlet entitled, 
"Suppressed History," I had no other alternative than 
to issue a reply in refutation of your statements. I 
have read innumerable books and pamphlets bearing on 
the European War, both pro-Ally and pro-German, but 
yours is far more prejudiced than any other I have ever 
read. It is violently pro-British and un-American. My 
honest opinion is that your pamphlet was written only 
for one purpose, and that was to further the cause of 
England, at the expense of the United States, not con- 
sidering whether that cause is just or vice versa. Your 
manner of writing appears factitious, which is subject to 
the repellance of the impartial American reader, while 
on the other hand it does not fail to win the continued 
confidence of an Anglophile. I shall endeavor to en- 
lighten you. if it is the truth you seek, on the question 
as to whether England or Germany has been our worst 
enemy. My thoughts and actions are always dictated by 
the highest regard for the interests of the United States, 
my adopted country. I care not for either England, Ger- 
many, Italy or any other country in the world ; but I do 
care for justice and honesty. 



II. 

First of all I wish to dispose of your claim, which is 
founded on a story narrated by L- E. Chittenden in his 
volume of "Recollections," that "an Englishman saved 
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Atlantic 
coast towns from bombardment during our Civil War," 
by his offer to deposit $5,000,000 in gold for the issue of 
an order to prevent the departure of two rebel armored 
vessels from England. The necessity of making the de- 
posit was avoided, however, for when Adams realized 
that it was only a clever contrivance to deceive the 
United States, (for it was practically an impossibility to 
furnish that amount by the Union, within the short period 
allowed) so that the two Confederate vessels could make 
a dash to sea, he made it manifest to Earl Russell that 
we would rather go to war with England than yield to 
her underhandedness. In a book which was published 
for the purpose of celebrating the one hundred years 



of unbroken peace between the United States and Great 
Britain, the author says (Dunning, The British Empire 
and the United States, 1914, p. 219) : 

"He (Adams) brought Earl Russell to realize that 
the Alabama should not be permitted to sail from 
Liverpool, though the earl's order to detain her 
arrived too late to serve its purpose. A year later 
when a far more serious menace to the Northern 
cause was prepared by the clever Confederate agents 
in England, and two great ironclads were nearing 
completion by the same firm that built the Alabama, 
Adams went to the verge of a hostile rupture before 
he persuaded Russell to seise the vessels." 



III. 

On the basis of the reply to your letter of April 14, 
1915, by the Counsellor of the Department of State, Robert 
Lansing (now Secretary of State), dated June 2, 1915, 
you purport to prove that England respected our blockade 
of Southern ports during the Civil War although it "had 
good grounds for protest and could and should have com- 
pelled the keeping open of the ports." The following 
communication, dated December 30, 1863, which flatly 
contradicts you, was sent by Mr. Adams, our Minister at 
the Court of St. James, to Earl Russell (Foreign Rela- 
tions 1863, Vol. 1, p. 42) : 

"It is a fact that few persons in England will now 
be bold enough to deny, first, that vessels have been 
built in British ports, as well as manned by her 
Majesty's subjects, with the design and intent to 
carry on war against the United States ; secondly, 
that other vessels owned by British subjects have 
been, and are yet, in the constant practice of de- 
parting from British ports laden with contraband of 
war, and many other commodities, with the intent 
to break the blockade and to procrastinate the war; 
thirdly, that such vessels have been, and are, insured 
by British merchants in the commercial towns of this 
kingdom with the understanding that they are des- 
patched for that illegal purpose. It is believed to 
be beyond denial that British subjects have been, and 
continue to be, enlisted in this kingdom in the service 
of the insurgents, with the intent to make war on 
the United States, or to break the blockade legiti- 
mately established, and, to a proportionate extent, to 
annul its purpose. It is believed that persons high 
in social position and in fortune contribute their aid, 
directly and indirectly, in building and equipping 
ships-of-war, as well as other vessels, and furnishing 
money as well as goods, with the hope of sustaining 

4 



the insurgents in their resistance to the government. 
. . . In short, so far as the acts of these 
numerous and influential parties can invoke them, the 
British people may be considered as actually carrying 
on war against the United States." 



IV. 

As to the English having "made two blades of grass 
grow where one grew before," I will cite you some facts 
which will no doubt prove amazing. Take India for 
example. I have before me a little pamphlet entitled 
British Rule in India" written by former Secretary of 
State, William Jennings Bryan, which should interest all 
lovers of truth, fair-play and impartiality. Comment on 
the following extracts is absolutely unnecessary; the au- 
thenticity and veracity of these statements cannot be 
questioned : 

"The government of India, is as arbitrary and 
despotic as the government of Russia ever was, and 
in two respects it is worse. First, it is administered 
by an alien people, whereas the officials of Russia are 
Russians. Secondly, it drains a large part of the taxes 
out of the country, whereas the Russian government 
spends at home the money which it collects from 
people, (p. 7.) 

"The poverty of the people of India is distressing 
in the extreme; millions live on the verge of starva- 
tion all the time, and one would think that their very 
appearance would plead successfully in their behalf " 
(p. 9.) 

British misrule in India is not an occasional but an in- 
cessant and systematic practice. The treatment accorded 
the natives, taken as a whole, is a deliberate violation of 
the laws of humanity, justice and liberty, which the 
British Empire is claimed to stand for. Lack of space 
prevents me from giving you other facts which expose 
British misrule in India. The delay in the spread of 
education in India means a retardation in the inevitable 
revolt for freedom and independence. 

V. 

Can there be freedom in a country (as is the case with 
England) where one-third of the people are always on 
the verge of starvation, as has been proven, and where 
every fourth man is buried in a pauper's grave? The 
great scientist, Alfred Russel Wallace in his book on 
"Social Environment and Moral Progress," N. Y., 1913 
declares that "the responsibility of Parliament is 'really 



criminal, since it always allows its legislation to be made 
ineffective by the fear of diminishing the employers' 
profits, thus deliberately placing money-making above human 
life, and human well-being." (p. 53.) "Who has mur- 
dered the 100,000 children," he asks, "who die annually 
before they are one year old?" (p. 58.) He sums up 
(p. 63) with good reason, that the conditions of labor in 
Great Britain through lack of government interference 
"are a disgrace to civilisation." 



VI. 

The claim that England stands for liberty rests mainly 
on the fact that she was the first country to free her 
negro slaves. An American authority of Celtic blood, 
who lived in England for more than twenty-five years, 
writes : "It was pointed out at the time, that after losing 
her chief North American colonies the large profits 
Britain had been making out of the slave traffic had fallen 
away to a small amount and that by freeing her slaves 
she only wished to read to the United States a lesson 
which would cost them infinitely more than it cost her." 
During the American Civil War it was this same England 
that did all in its power, while professing to be neutral, 
to dismember our country. "Of all the nations," wrote 
Seward on December 27, 1864, in his Diary or Notes on 
the War, "Great Britain seems to us the last that could 
justly or wisely become, directly or indirectly, an opponent 
of the United States in a civil war begun and waged and 
persisted in by insurgents for the extension of African 
slavery." (Works of William H. Seward, Vol. 5, 1884, 
p. 168.) 

VII. 

Have we so soon forgotten the only friends we had 
when we really needed friends? Why not read anew the 
history of our Civil War, when this nation was really 
made, and learn again what Germany did for us in that 
hour of need? I will cite a few extracts from the 
speeches in Congress taken from the Congressional Globe 
of the 41st Congress, 3rd session, Part 2 of 1870-71 (pp. 
954 to 955) : 

Mr. Pomeroy : They [the Germans] sent us men ; 
they recruited our armies with men; they helped to 
save the life of this nation. 

Mr. Stewart (later, on p. 955) : Allow me to call 
the attention of the Senator from Tennessee to the 
fact, which he must recollect, of the amount of our 
bonds that were taken in Germany at the time we 
needed that they should be taken, and when they 



were prohibited from the exchange in London and 
from the Bourse in Paris, and not allowed to be on 
the markets there at all on account of the state of 
public opinion there, while Germany alone came in 
and took five or six hundred million dollars at a 
time when we needed money more than anything else 
to sustain our credit. That is a fact showing sympathy 
certainly. 

VIII. 

Now as to the Monroe Doctrine, — are you aware of 
the actual circumstances leading to its promulgation? 
You appear to be ignorant on this point, for, regardless 
of the following facts, you insist that it is of English 
origin. In the proceedings at the Second Congress of 
Verona, held by the Holy Alliance in 1822, "the subject 
of helping Spain recover her revolting colonies in America 
was discussed." (Tucker, The Monroe Doctrine, Bost. 
1885, pp. 7-8.) "This action of the powers threatened 
English commercial interests already established with 
these States, and England, through George Canning, 
promptly proposed to the United States a joint declara- 
tion by the two governments against their action." (New 
Int. Encyc. Vol. 16, Ed. 2, 1916, p. 169.) If Spain suc- 
ceeded in recovering her American colonies, a restrictive 
commercial policy would follow which would mean the 
loss of a considerable and increasing trade then enjoyed 
by England. Canning's object was to prevent this if pos- 
sible, hence his proposal, which you no doubt know was 
not agreed to by the United States. However, "in so far 
as the message was construed to interdict future coloni- 
sation, it was generally opposed {in Europe) even by 
Canning." (same p. 170.) The purpose which the doc- 
trine was intended to serve as declared by President 
Monroe was apparent to Canning to be different to that 
desired by him. 

IX. 

I protest against the abuse and ridicule being heaped 
upon the German people. Let us be fair to this great 
and wonderful race, so competent in industry, science, 
music, arts and letters. I believe that Col. Roosevelt 
recently said that Germany is the teacher of the world. 
Don't they prove themselves to be the most industrious, 
peace-loving and progressive of citizens? Are they not 
better fitted to become American citizens, both socially 
and morally, than any other nationality coming from 
Europe or Asia? It has been well said by a member of 
Congress, that as law-abiding citizens they are unsurpassed 
and perhaps unequaled by any race of people. Did the 
Americans of Anglophile sympathies, in which category 
you belong, object for a moment to such men as Muh- 



lenberg, Steuben, Herkimer and Pastorious, who fought 
against England for our independence? 

German-American citizens are accused of treason and 
disloyalty just because they are pro-German, while Amer- 
ican citizens of Anglo-Saxon blood espousing the Allied 
•:ause are hailed as patriots. Is it a crime, then, under 
the Constitution to be pro-German? Does not the Con- 
stitution confer upon all citizens, native and naturalized, 
the right of free speech? I have as perfect a right to 
favor Germany as my opponent has England ; I respect 
his opinion and in justice to the constitutional right of 
free speech, I see no reason why my opinion should 
not be respected in cordial reciprocation. Nevertheless, 
it appears to me, in view of existing conditions, that in 
order to be respected and treated as a loyal American 
citizen one must be pro-British ; in other words, if you 
want to be acclaimed a patriotic American, you must 
meekly submit to John Bull's dictation. 

X. 

If we have again come to be a colony of and dependent 
on Great Britain ; if it is obligatory upon me, as an 
American citizen, to foster Britannia's interests at the 
expense of those of my adopted country; if I am obliged 
to uphold the administration, right or wrong, and if I 
have no more right to criticize the national policy of 
public servants whose salaries are paid out of the people's 
treasury, than a Russian subject, then I will quietly sub- 
mit my patriotism to be adjudicated as treasonable, but 
my freedom of speech in the criticism and denunciation 
of those who do so adjudicate me will continue to be 
more forcible and passionate. I will support the Presi- 
dent of my adopted country only when my conscience 
tells me that he is in the right, and not merely because 
he is President. We are not in despotic England, the 
oppressor of India and Ireland, or autocratic Russia. 
If I, or my father I should say, had been willing to sub- 
mit to England's tutelage, he would have kept me in my 
native country, — Italy. If the Administration is willing 
to surrender the independent rights of the American 
people, it is travelling on the wrong road. If it has for- 
gotten that the United States of America is a free and 
independent nation, it is badly mistaken. If it feels or is 
inclined to the belief that it is best that we bow to the 
behests of English domination, as Belgium did, for in- 
stance, it is also mistaken. The American people as a 
whole have not forgotten their own right to live free and 
independent, and if their liberty is threatened,— well, Eng- 
land in one way, and the Democratic regime at Washing- 
ton in the other, better be on the lookout ! 

Note : Italics throughout are mine. 

8 



£3 Cuuj+JkjLyy 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 914 124 3 



Hollingcr 

pH 8.5 

Mill Run F03-2193 



